From the very beginning my Opponent, her campaign Treasurer, her campaign manager, and her supporters have chosen to run an ugly smear campaign full of relentless cyber bullying, untrue innuendos, anonymous attacks and false accusations of corruption.
My Opponent’s major supporters funded a nasty, negative PAC whose only purpose was to put out false information about me and my supporters.
One of my Opponent’s major supporters filed a bogus and false ethics complaint on my appointee to the Zoning and Platting Commission, including sending out a press release to all major media obviously intending to discredit both me and my appointee.
My Opponent's supporters have been placing flyers in mailboxes which is illegal by federal law.
My Opponent's supporters have been trespassing on my supporters’ property and defacing their yard signs and also have been destroying our larger signs
Is this who we have become in Austin? Hopefully not. We can’t let our community stoop to these lows, and we need voters to say NO to this type of dirty politics.
But the most important thing is that I want thank my supporters for representing the respectful and “high road” part of our Austin community. You’re the best!
- Sheri Gallo
Is my Opponent Trustworthy? NO…
Alter signed the Austin Fair Campaign Contract and put the following language on every piece of her campaign literature which said “This campaign has agreed to comply with the contribution and expenditure limits of the Austin Fair Campaign Ordinance”. But she lied and proceeded to spend more than the $75,000 expenditure limit restriction in the Austin Fair Campaign Ordinance during the General Election.
She then used a loophole in the Austin Fair Campaign Ordinance to get over $64,000 in public funds from the City of Austin deposited into her campaign account.
Does my Opponent understand current City Policy: NO…
Many statements made by my Opponent show clearly that my Opponent does not understand existing City policy. Her lack of knowledge is frightening and should be concerning to District 10 residents as we as a city attempt to address critical issues in our community including affordable housing and traffic safety issues in our neighborhoods.
FALSE STATEMENTS FROM MY OPPONENT:
“giving developers millions in subsidies while we pick up the tab. That’s what’s making our taxes rise and the cost of living go up”
“She (Sheri) voted to give over $50 million in fee waivers to developers of the Pilot Knot PUD.”
“Gallo supports the developers of the massive 75 acre Grove project along Shoal Creek, who are asking for over $5 million in city fee waivers as a subsidy. Tax and rate payers will eat the cost.”
THE FACTS:
Austin has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in our growing city as we have encountered increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, and public/private partnerships.
S.M.A.R.T. Housing (First implemented in 2000). S.M.A.R.T. Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed-income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside at least 10 percent of housing units as affordable. (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed-income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. These fee waivers pay only a portion of the developer’s cost of providing affordable housing as part of their projects.
SO MY OPPONENT’S NEGATIVE REFERENCES TO “DEVELOPER INCENTIVES” AND PILOT KNOB AND GROVE “FEE WAIVERS” ARE AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD. THOSE INCENTIVES AND FEE WAIVERS ARE ACTUALLY PART OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL INITIATIVE PROGRAMS TO GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY
THE REVENUES FROM NEW GROWTH (PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAXES, ETC) PAY FOR THE COSTS OF THESE PROGRAMS NOT TAX PAYERS AS MY OPPONENT CLAIMS.
FALSE STATEMENTS FROM MY OPPONENT:
“Gallo even proposed diverting millions of future city tax revenues from the Grove-money that would normally fund services throughout the city-to dedicate that tax money to deal with traffic problems caused by the Grove itself”
THE FACTS:
ONCE AGAIN MY OPPONENT IS NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT CITY POLICY.
HER STATEMENT ALSO SHOWS SHE IS NOT SUPPORTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEIR MEDIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE GROVE ZONING CASE.
ALREADY 100% OF THE GROVE FUTURE CITY TAX REVENUES IS ALLOCATED TO GO TO THE HOUSING TRUST FUND SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS EACH YEAR AND IS NOT INTENDED TO FUND OTHER SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY
Housing Trust Fund (First implemented in 2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed local funds to the Housing Trust Fund. The city dedicates to the fund 100 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on previously government-owned property…this includes the Grove at Shoal Creek
ADDRESSING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY IS AN ITEM INCLUDED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTY OWNER MEDIATED AGREEMENT.
This is something very important to the neighborhoods, important for me to support and was part of the 6 Neighborhood Associations (represented by BCRC) initial list of required components for support of the project.
#20 of the Mediated Agreement between the BCRC (6 neighborhood associations) and the property owner:
Adopt an Additional Off-Site Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Program and Fund with a Maximum ARG Contribution of $400,000.00 and a maximum contribution by the City of $900,000.00